Tort Law in Nepal (2026): Civil Code 2074 Sections 672-684

Tort law in Nepal is the body of law that gives a person who has suffered a civil wrong — a wrong other than a breach of contract or a crime — the right to claim compensation from the wrongdoer. For most of Nepal's legal history tort was treated as scattered judge-made doctrine read in from common-law principles, applied case by case at the District Court. That changed on 17 August 2018 (Bhadra 1, 2075 BS) when the Muluki Civil Code 2074 came into force and codified the law of torts in Chapter 17, Sections 672 to 684. Civil wrongs that previously had to be argued from first principles now have a statutory home. See Alpine's tort-law practice area for related matters.

This 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's guide walks through tort law in Nepal as it now stands under the Civil Code 2074: what counts as a tort, the four recognised categories (intentional torts, negligence, strict liability and vicarious liability), the four elements of negligence as Nepali courts read them, how tort overlaps with crime where the same act is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence, the remedies the District Court can order (damages, injunction, declaratory relief), the limitation period within which a tort suit must be filed, common defences raised by defendants, and the practical procedure for taking a tort claim from notice through filing to judgment.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered civil litigation team handling tort claims across personal injury, defamation, professional negligence, property damage and employer liability matters at District Courts and Appellate Courts.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is a tort under Nepali law?

A tort is a civil wrong — distinct from a breach of contract and distinct from a crime — that causes harm to another person and gives the harmed person a right to claim compensation. The classic shorthand is "civil wrong with unliquidated damages": civil because the State is not the prosecutor, the victim brings the claim themselves; unliquidated because the amount of compensation is determined by the court on the evidence, not fixed in advance by a contract or statute.

Under the Muluki Civil Code 2074, Chapter 17 (Sections 672 to 684) codifies tort liability in Nepal. Before the Code came into force on 17 August 2018, Nepali courts decided tort claims by reading in common-law principles through the Country Code (Muluki Ain) and judge-made jurisprudence. The Civil Code 2074 brought tort onto a single statutory footing — though as commentators have noted, the codified framework does not exhaustively define every element (the "duty of care" doctrine, for example, is read in by analogy rather than spelled out in the text), so common-law influence remains substantial in how courts apply the statute.

Sections 672 to 684 — the statutory framework

Chapter 17 of the Civil Code 2074 spans Sections 672 to 684 and lays down the general principles of tort law in Nepal. The provisions establish the right of any person to seek compensation for injury to person, property or reputation; describe the categories of liability (intentional, negligent, strict and vicarious); identify the kinds of harm for which a remedy is available; and set out the framework for remedies including damages, injunction and declaratory relief.

The Code does not repeat every common-law doctrine in detail. Concepts that practitioners would expect to find — duty of care, foreseeability, remoteness of damage, the "neighbour principle", contributory negligence in detail — are referenced in broad strokes and developed in court practice. The result is a statute that gives a clear hook for filing tort claims and a clear forum (the District Court) but still leaves room for courts to read in common-law principles when the facts of a case demand it.

Categories of tort recognised in Nepal

Nepali tort law under the Civil Code 2074 recognises four broad categories of liability. Each category has its own ingredients and its own evidentiary path at trial.

• Intentional torts. Wrongs committed deliberately or with knowledge that the act would cause harm. The principal heads are assault (threat of imminent harm), battery (unlawful physical contact), false imprisonment (unlawful restraint), trespass to person or property, conversion (wrongful taking of goods), nuisance (interference with use of land), and defamation (libel and slander damaging reputation).
• Negligence. The largest category in modern tort practice. Liability attaches where a person who owed a duty of care fails to meet the standard of a reasonable person and that failure causes harm. Road traffic accidents, medical negligence, professional negligence by lawyers, accountants and engineers, and occupiers' liability for unsafe premises all run on the negligence model.
• Strict liability. Liability without fault, applied to activities that carry an inherent risk of serious harm — handling explosives, storing hazardous chemicals, keeping dangerous animals, operating high-voltage installations. The claimant need only prove the harm and the defendant's connection to the dangerous activity; the defendant cannot escape by showing reasonable care.
• Vicarious liability. Liability of one person for the tort of another arising from a recognised relationship — most often employer for employee, principal for agent, partner for partner. The relationship must exist and the tort must have been committed in the course of that relationship.

Negligence — the four elements and Nepali application

Negligence is the workhorse of modern tort practice in Nepal. To establish a negligence claim at the District Court, the claimant must prove four elements, each on the balance of probabilities. The claim fails if any one element is absent.

• Duty of care. The defendant owed the claimant a legal duty to take reasonable care. The duty arises from the relationship (doctor-patient, driver-other road user, employer-employee, occupier-visitor) and from the foreseeability that careless conduct could harm the claimant. Although the Civil Code 2074 does not expressly enumerate the duty-of-care test, Nepali courts read it in by analogy with common-law jurisprudence — the "neighbour principle" that you owe a duty to those whom you can reasonably foresee being affected by your conduct.
• Breach of duty. The defendant's conduct fell below the standard expected of a reasonable person in the same position. For professionals, the standard is that of a reasonably competent member of the profession (the equivalent of the Bolam standard in common law). Expert evidence is critical in professional negligence cases.
• Causation. The breach caused the claimant's harm. The "but for" test applies — the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach. Where there are multiple causes, the breach must be a material contributing cause. Remoteness is a secondary control: only harm that was reasonably foreseeable is recoverable.
• Damages. Actual harm — physical injury, property loss, financial loss, reputation damage, or recognised psychiatric injury. Speculative or hypothetical harm is not recoverable. The claimant must plead and prove the specific heads of loss being claimed.

The four-element structure is universal across negligence claims, but the evidence varies by context — police reports and medical records for road traffic claims, expert opinions and clinical records for medical negligence in Nepal, professional standards and case files for lawyer or accountant negligence, photographs and engineering reports for premises liability.

Defamation as a tort — overlap with the Defamation Act

Defamation occupies a special position in Nepali tort law because it operates on two parallel tracks. As a tort under Civil Code 2074 Chapter 17, defamation gives the victim a civil claim for compensation at the District Court. As a separate matter under criminal and statutory law, defamation can also trigger criminal prosecution under the National Penal Code 2074 and special provisions in media-related statutes. The same statement — a false written or spoken accusation that lowers the claimant in the eyes of reasonable people — can ground both a tort claim and a criminal case on the same facts.

The tort claim focuses on the elements of defamation: a defamatory statement, published to a third party (i.e. communicated to someone other than the claimant), referring to the claimant, and causing actual or presumed damage to reputation. Defences include truth (justification), fair comment on a matter of public interest, qualified privilege (statements made in the discharge of a duty), and absolute privilege (parliamentary and judicial proceedings). The full Nepal defamation law overlay sits alongside the Civil Code tort head and counsel running a reputation case typically engages both.

Vicarious liability — employer for employee

Vicarious liability holds one person responsible for the tort of another because of a recognised relationship between them. The principal application in Nepal is employer for employee: where an employee commits a tort in the course of employment, the employer is jointly and severally liable along with the employee. The rationale is partly distributive (the employer is in a better position to bear the loss and insure against it) and partly behavioural (the employer's liability incentivises proper hiring, training and supervision).

The course-of-employment test is the key gateway. A delivery driver who runs over a pedestrian while making a scheduled delivery is acting in the course of employment, and the employer is liable. A delivery driver who deviates from the route to run a personal errand and causes an accident during the deviation may be on a "frolic of his own", taking him outside the course of employment for the duration of the deviation. The line is fact-sensitive and turns on the closeness of the connection between the wrongful act and the work the employee was engaged to do.

Beyond the employment relationship, vicarious liability extends to principal for agent (in agency relationships), partners for one another's acts in the partnership business, and parents for children's torts in limited statutory circumstances. The Civil Code 2074 references the principle in broad terms and courts apply it in line with common-law jurisprudence.

Strict liability — abnormally dangerous activities

Strict liability is the no-fault head of tort. It applies where a person engages in an abnormally dangerous activity — handling explosives, storing or transporting hazardous chemicals, operating high-voltage electrical installations, keeping dangerous animals — and the activity causes harm. The claimant does not need to prove that the defendant was careless; the dangerous nature of the activity itself is the basis of liability.

The doctrine traces to the common-law rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which Nepali courts have applied through judge-made jurisprudence and which now sits comfortably within the Civil Code 2074 framework. Defences are narrow — typically Act of God (a natural event of extraordinary force), act of a stranger over whom the defendant had no control, statutory authority (where Parliament has expressly authorised the activity), and consent of the claimant. Contributory negligence is generally not a defence to strict liability but may reduce the damages.

Remedies in tort — damages, injunction and declaration

The Civil Code 2074 gives the District Court three principal remedies in tort. The choice of remedy is driven by the nature of the harm and the claimant's strategic goal.

• Damages. Monetary compensation is the default remedy. Compensatory damages cover actual loss — medical bills, lost earnings, property repair or replacement cost, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of reputation. Where the defendant's conduct was malicious or oppressive, the court may also award aggravated damages reflecting the additional harm caused by the manner of the wrong.
• Injunction. A court order restraining the defendant from continuing the wrongful conduct. Available where damages would be inadequate — typically in nuisance cases (continuing interference with use of land), repeated defamation, ongoing trespass, or threatened harm that has not yet fully materialised. Interim injunctions can be granted at the start of the suit on an urgent application; permanent injunctions form part of the final judgment.
• Declaratory relief. A court declaration of the legal position between the parties — that the defendant's conduct is unlawful, that the claimant has a particular right, or that a particular state of affairs is the legal position. Useful where the parties are in dispute about their rights and need a binding determination without (or in addition to) compensation.

In some categories, restitutionary remedies are also available — return of property wrongfully taken (in conversion), or disgorgement of profits the defendant made from the wrong. The District Court can mould its order to fit the case, granting damages and an injunction together where both are warranted.

Tort vs crime — when the same act triggers both

One act can be both a tort and a crime. A punch in a street fight is both the tort of battery (giving the victim a civil claim for compensation) and the criminal offence of assault under the National Penal Code 2074 (giving the State a prosecution case for punishment). A false published accusation can be both the tort of defamation and a criminal offence under media-related statutes. A driver who runs a red light and injures a pedestrian commits the tort of negligence and a criminal traffic offence.

The two proceedings operate on different tracks. The tort claim is filed by the victim, runs on the civil standard (balance of probabilities), and seeks compensation. The criminal case is filed by the State, runs on the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and seeks punishment. They can run in parallel on the same facts. Acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically defeat the tort claim — the lower civil standard may still be satisfied even where the criminal standard was not. Conversely, a criminal conviction is strong evidence in a subsequent tort claim though it is not strictly binding on the civil court.

Limitation period — when must the suit be filed?

Tort claims in Nepal are subject to a limitation period running from the date the cause of action arose — typically the date of the wrongful act or the date the harm was first manifested or reasonably discoverable. The general band is one to three years, with the precise period depending on the category of tort and the type of harm. Defamation claims tend to attract the shorter end of the band; personal-injury negligence claims typically sit higher. Where harm manifests later than the wrongful act (latent injury, delayed-discovery cases), the cause of action arises on the date the harm became discoverable with reasonable diligence.

The limitation period is jurisdictional — a claim filed out of time will be dismissed by the District Court regardless of merit. Counsel running a tort file diligence-checks the limitation position before any other strategic decision and, if time is tight, prioritises filing over further investigation. Interim relief such as injunctions can be applied for immediately upon filing without waiting for the full evidence to be assembled.

District Court procedure for filing a tort suit

A tort suit in Nepal is filed at the District Court of the place where the tort occurred or where the defendant resides. The procedure tracks the general civil litigation framework: a written statement of claim setting out the facts, the legal basis (category of tort and the relevant Civil Code 2074 sections), the heads of damage being claimed, and the remedy sought; payment of court fees calculated on the value of the claim; service of summons on the defendant; written statement of defence; framing of issues; evidence (documents and witnesses); arguments; and judgment.

Evidence is the centre of gravity in tort litigation. Police reports, medical records, photographs of the scene and injuries, witness statements, expert reports (medical experts for personal injury, accident reconstruction experts for traffic claims, accounting experts for financial-loss quantification), and the claimant's own contemporaneous notes and correspondence all build the file. Where the tort overlaps with a criminal case, transcripts and judgments from the criminal proceedings are admissible in the tort case as evidence of fact.

Common defences — what defendants raise

Defendants in tort claims commonly run one or more of the following defences. Counsel preparing a claim should anticipate which defences will be raised and structure the evidence to defeat them.

• Consent (volenti non fit injuria). The claimant consented to the risk that caused the harm — a contact-sport injury suffered within the rules of the game, a surgical complication after informed consent, harm in a clearly-warned dangerous activity. Consent must be informed and freely given.
• Contributory negligence. The claimant's own negligence contributed to the harm — a pedestrian who stepped onto the road without looking, a passenger who refused to wear a seatbelt. Contributory negligence reduces the damages proportionately to the claimant's share of fault.
• Voluntary assumption of risk. The claimant voluntarily exposed themselves to a known risk — entering a clearly-marked construction site, accepting a lift from a visibly intoxicated driver. Stronger than contributory negligence; can defeat the claim entirely where the facts support it.
• Statutory authority. The defendant acted under express statutory authority that authorised the conduct in question — typically applies to public works, road construction, infrastructure projects, and regulated industrial operations. Available only where the statute clearly contemplates and authorises the harm in question.
• Inevitable accident. The harm was unavoidable despite all reasonable care — typically narrow and rarely successful where the defendant had any meaningful control over the situation.
• Act of God. An extraordinary natural event (earthquake, flood of unprecedented scale) caused the harm. Engages mainly in strict-liability cases as a complete defence; in negligence cases, it operates by negating the breach element.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with tort claims?

Alpine Law Associates runs tort litigation across the full range of categories — personal injury from road traffic accidents, medical negligence claims, professional negligence against lawyers, accountants and engineers, defamation claims, employer-liability and vicarious-liability claims, nuisance and trespass disputes, and strict-liability claims arising from hazardous-activity harm. We advise on the merits of a prospective claim at the intake stage, secure the evidence early (medical records, police reports, expert opinions, scene photographs), and file at the District Court within the limitation window.

For defendants, we run the full defence — challenging the duty, breach, causation or damage elements; raising consent, contributory negligence, statutory authority or other defences with supporting evidence; and where appropriate negotiating a settlement that avoids the cost and reputational exposure of a contested trial. As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we coordinate tort claims with related criminal defence, insurance recovery, and contractual workstreams in a single counsel relationship — particularly important in cases like motor accidents and medical negligence where civil, criminal and insurance proceedings often run in parallel.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026